Professional Documents
Culture Documents
24:291–311
Copyright © 1998 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
That the United States leads the industrialized nations in rates of interpersonal
violence is a well-documented fact (National Research Council 1993). Exam-
ples of this can be seen in the extraordinarily high rates of violent crimes such
291
0360-0572/98/0815-0291$08.00
292 PARKER & AUERHAHN
as homicide, robbery, and rape in the United States (National Research Coun-
cil 1993, Parker & Rebhun 1995); an additional and disturbing fact that has
come to light in recent years is the increasing rate of youth violence, particu-
larly lethal violence (Blumstein 1995; Alaniz et al 1998).
During the last decade, interest has grown in the relationship between alco-
hol, drugs, and violence. In addition to the mostly misguided attention in mass
media and in political circles to the relationship between illegal drugs and vio-
lence, a number of empirical studies have attempted to disentangle the associa-
tions between alcohol, drugs, and violence. Several studies have attempted to
organize this knowledge into a comprehensive theoretical framework. This
chapter synthesizes this body of work to assess the state of the art in thinking
about the relationships between psychoactive substances and violent behavior.
Defining and understanding the complex relationships among alcohol,
drugs, and violence require that we examine issues of pharmacology, settings,
and larger social contexts to understand the mechanisms that associate sub-
stance use and violence in individuals. In addition to this, we must also consid-
er not only the ways in which individuals are nested within larger social con-
texts, but also the ways in which these contexts themselves may create condi-
tions in which violent behavior takes place, for example, the ways in which
availability of substances, while itself conditioned to some degree by larger so-
cial forces, contributes to the spatial distribution of crime and violence.
We do not attempt to review the growing literature on the biological aspects
of violence. Despite increased interest in this area of research, no credible scien-
tific evidence currently exists that demonstrates any significant link between
biological characteristics and violence (National Research Council 1993). Fu-
ture research may reveal complex interactions among biological, pharmacol-
ogical, psychological, and contextual aspects of alcohol- and drug-related vio-
lence, but no conclusive evidence exists to support this idea at present.
In addition to trying to understand the ways in which alcohol and drug use
may contribute to violent behavior, it is also important to consider the ways
that alcohol and other drugs relate to human behavior in general. Some ad-
vances have been made in the study of psychological expectancies concerning
alcohol’s effect on behavior (Brown 1993, Grube et al 1994), the relationship
between alcohol and cognitive functioning (Pihl et al 1993), the impact of al-
cohol on aggressive behavior (Leonard & Taylor 1983), and the dynamic de-
velopmental effects of early exposure to alcohol and violence among young
people (White et al 1993) and among women who have been victimized as
children and as adults (Miller & Downs 1993, Widom & Ames 1994, Roesler
& Dafler 1993).
Similar work has attempted to understand the links between illicit drugs and
behavior, although due to the attention focused on the illegality of these sub-
stances, this body of work tends to be most concerned with illegal behaviors
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 293
that might be associated with drugs. Examples from this literature include ex-
aminations of the links between drug use and delinquent behavior among juve-
niles (Watts & Wright 1990, Fagan 1993, Fagan et al 1990); relationships be-
tween substance use and domestic violence (Bennett 1995, Bennett et al 1994,
Roberts 1987, Blount et al 1994); the ways in which the use and distribution of
illicit drugs are related to all types of crime, particularly nonviolent property
offenses (Ball et al 1982, Ball 1991, Baumer 1994, Greenberg 1976, Johnson
et al 1994, Klein & Maxson 1985, McCoy et al 1995, Meiczkowski 1994,
Feucht & Kyle 1996); and the impact of drug use on the ability to maintain in-
terpersonal relationships (Joe 1996, Fishbein 1996, Lerner & Burns 1978).
A fairly common problem specific to theoretical and empirical investiga-
tions of the relationship between drugs and violence is the tendency—largely
ideological—to lump all illicit drugs together, as if all drugs might be expected
to have the same relationship to violent behavior. Different drugs certainly do
have different pharmacological effects, which may or may not influence the
user’s tendency toward violence; this should be treated as a prominent empiri-
cal question, rather than as an afterthought usually addressed only when results
are disaggregated by drug type. Another problem specific to the analysis of the
impacts of illicit drugs on behavior that hinders our understanding of the rela-
tionship between drugs and violence in real-world (as opposed to laboratory)
settings was cogently pointed out by one researcher—that the degree of both
impurity and deception in the illicit drug market “makes any direct inferences
between drug-taking and behavior seem almost ludicrous” (Greenberg 1976,
p. 119; see also Johnson 1978). Evidence of the greater likelihood of polydrug
use among more violent research subjects also confuses any causal inferences
that can be made with respect to particular drugs (e.g. Spunt et al 1995, Inciardi
& Pottieger 1994).
Taylor 1992, Pihl et al 1993). Roizen (1993, pp. 4–5) reports that in nearly 40
studies of violent offenders, and an equal number of studies of victims of vio-
lence, alcohol involvement was found in about 50% of the events and people
examined. Although most individual-level studies assume that alcohol has a
potentially causal role, an argument supported by the experimental studies
cited here, some have argued variously that the relationship is spurious (Col-
lins 1989), that both are caused by third factors (Jessor & Jessor 1977), or that
aggression and violence precede alcohol and drug abuse (White et al 1987).
In general, little evidence suggests that illicit drugs are uniquely associated
with the occurrence of violent crime. While respondents of the 1991 National
Criminal Victimization Survey perceived more than one fourth of violent
criminal assailants to be under the influence of alcohol, less than 10% of these
assailants were reported by victims to be under the influence of illicit drugs. Of
these, more than half were reported to be under the influence of both alcohol and
drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992a). These percentages are supported by
urinalysis data for persons arrested for violent offenses, which yield the find-
ing that in 1990, only 5.6% of violent offenders were under the influence of il-
licit drugs at the time of their offense (US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992b).
Studies of the drug and alcohol involvement of homicide offenders and vic-
tims also support the notion that alcohol is, overwhelmingly, the substance
most frequently implicated in this particular form of violence (Abel 1987,
Spunt et al 1994, 1995, Wieczorek et al 1990, Yarvis 1994, Fendrich et al
1995, Goldstein et al 1992). Interview studies with homicide offenders as well
as toxicology studies of homicide victims consistently report that approxi-
mately half of all homicide offenders are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol at the
time of the crime; similar percentages of homicide victims test positive for
substance use as well (Abel 1987, Langevin et al 1982, Ray & Simons 1987,
Fendrich et al 1995, Spunt et al 1994, 1995, Wieczorek et al 1990, Kratcoski
1990, Welte & Abel 1989, Garriott 1993, Tardiff et al 1995). Some evidence
suggests that alcohol is the substance most frequently implicated in other vio-
lent events as well (Buss et al 1995, US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992a).1
1 1Difficulties inherent in trying to assess the involvement of alcohol relative to other drugs in
violent events are largely the result of the way in which the research agenda surrounding the
relationship between drugs, alcohol, and violence has been constructed. The majority of data
collection efforts seem to be focused either on one particular substance (e.g. cocaine) and its
relationship to or involvement in violent episodes or on comparisons between alcohol and illicit
drugs in general, thereby hindering comparisons not only between alcohol and other drugs, but
between different illicit drugs as well. A recent example is the National Institute of Justice report
entitled Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis (1997), which details research
conducted to determine the role of substance use in incidents of domestic violence. At no point in
the report are alcohol and drug use separated into distinct phenomena, making it impossible to
determine what substances may be associated with domestic violence.
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 295
Heroin
Evidence to support a link between heroin and violence is virtually nonexist-
ent. While there is some evidence that heroin users participate in economically
motivated property crimes (see Kaplan 1983, pp. 51–58 for a thoughtful and
critical discussion of this issue), the work of Ball and his colleagues (Ball et al
1982, Ball 1991) fails to uncover persuasive evidence for a link between her-
oin use and violent crime. Although no specific measures for violent crime are
reported in the analysis of self-reported criminality (validated by official rec-
ords) from a sample of 243 heroin addicts in Baltimore, only 3% of the sample
reported committing, on a daily basis, any crime other than theft; the figures
for the weekly and “infrequent” commission of crimes other than theft are 3%
and 9%, respectively (Ball et al 1982). A later, more comprehensive analysis
undertaken to determine whether or not “common forces attributable to heroin
addiction are of primary etiological importance with respect to crime” (Ball
1991, p. 413) compares addict samples from three major Eastern cities. Echo-
ing the results of the 1982 study, involvement in violent crime was negligible,
accounting for between 1.5% and 5.6% of all addict criminality across cities
(Ball 1991, p. 419).
Amphetamines
Considerable investigation has been made into a possible pharmacological
link between amphetamines and violence. Some evidence indicates that in rare
cases, either sustained periods of heavy use or extremely high acute doses can
induce what has variously been called “toxic psychosis” or “amphetamine-
induced psychosis,” a reaction that is virtually indistinguishable from schizo-
phrenia (Ellinwood 1971, Fukushima 1994). Aside from these extremely rare
cases, some evidence may speak to a link between violent behavior and am-
phetamine use in ethnographic samples (Joe 1996) and in case-study research
(Ellinwood 1971). One researcher notes, however, that this link may result
from situational influences: “several…subjects seem to have lost intellectual
awareness because they lived alone and had little chance to cross-check their
delusional thinking. A long-term solitary lifestyle seems particularly signifi-
cant in fostering this effect” (Ellinwood 1971, p. 1173).
296 PARKER & AUERHAHN
The importance of context and situation for the association between am-
phetamine use and violent behavior is supported by animal studies as well;
Miczek & Tidey (1989) report that the social relationship between experimen-
tal animals significantly influences the level and type of violent behavior that
they manifest when on amphetamines (Miczek & Tidey 1989, p. 75). Addi-
tionally, the baseline rate of violent or aggressive behavior prior to ampheta-
mine administration was an important predictor of violent behavior after drug
administration. The authors conclude from this review of animal studies that:
Among the most important determinants of amphetamine effects on aggres-
sive and defensive responses are the stimulus situation, species, prior experi-
ence with these types of behavior, and…dosage and chronicity of drug expo-
sure. (Miczek & Tidey 1989, p. 71)
Cocaine
Some evidence suggests that cocaine use and violent behavior may be associ-
ated (Miller et al 1991, Budd 1989, Inciardi & Pottieger 1994); one of the most
widely reported pharmacological effects of cocaine in users is feelings of para-
noia (Goode 1993, Miller et al 1991). At least one group of researchers suggest
that cocaine-associated violence “may in part be a defensive reaction to irra-
tional fear” (Miller et al 1991, p. 1084).
The route of administration may influence the likelihood of violent behav-
ior in users, with methods delivering the most intense and immediate effects
being most closely associated with some forms of violent behavior. Users who
smoked the drug in the form of “crack” were most likely to engage in violence
proximate to cocaine use, followed by users taking the drug intravenously. Us-
ers who “snorted” the drug were found to be least likely to engage in violence
(Giannini et al 1993).2 However, these researchers also reported that forms of
violence “requiring sustained activity” (defined by the authors to include such
acts as rape and robbery) were not associated with route of administration of
cocaine. Because of this, the authors conclude that “circumstance and situation
may be as important as route of administration” (Giannini et al 1993, p. 69).
The greater influence of social rather than pharmacological factors on the
cocaine-violence relationship has also been reported elsewhere. Goldstein et al
(1991) found that the relationship of violence to volume of cocaine use varied
according to gender, with only male “big users” of cocaine contributing dis-
proportionately to the distribution of violent events reported by the sample as a
2 2Miller et al (1991) failed to find any such relationship between route of administration and
violence; however, the authors point out that this lack of finding may be explained by the use of a
treatment sample of users who were likely using cocaine in such high dosage and frequency as to
blur any distinction between acute toxicity effects specific to route of administration (Miller et al
1991, p. 1084).
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 297
Phencyclidine
Phencyclidine (PCP) is widely believed to be associated with violence; this
conclusion is based almost exclusively on case study research, often of indi-
viduals with psychiatric disturbances (e.g. Lerner & Burns 1978, McCarron et
al 1981). Ketamine, a drug pharmacologically quite similar to PCP, has en-
joyed increasing popularity in recent years (Dotson et al 1995). PCP and Keta-
mine are classified as “dissociative anaesthetics” because they diminish
awareness not only of pain but also of the environment in general. Delusions,
paranoia, and (in rare cases) psychosis are among the most commonly reported
effects of these drugs by users and clinicians (Marwah & Pitts 1986, Lerner &
Burns 1978, McCarron 1986, Dotson et al 1995). However, one researcher
concludes that “emotionally stable people under the influence of PCP probably
will not act in a way very different from their normal behavior” (Siegel 1978,
p. 285).
Official crime statistics fail to show conclusive evidence for a unique link
between PCP use and violent crime; arrestees who were not under the influ-
ence of illicit drugs (according to urinalysis) were more likely to be charged
with assault than were persons testing positive for PCP (Wish 1986). Among
PCP-positive arrestees, the conditional distribution of offenses is influenced
toward a greater likelihood of robbery charges, but Wish (1986) notes that this
may be an artifact of demographic coincidence; PCP users tend to be younger
than the average user of illicit drugs and thus coincide with the age group that
dominates robbery arrests (Wish 1986, Maguire et al 1993).
298 PARKER & AUERHAHN
Summary
This review of the evidence concerning the relationship between the use of
various illicit drugs and violence makes it clear that support for such linkages
is absent. At best, we can characterize the available results as inconclusive.
The strongest evidence is for a link between cocaine use and violence; how-
ever, the conclusions of researchers whose findings support this idea univer-
sally highlight a social rather than a pharmacological basis for this link. At
present, no compelling evidence exists to support an association between vio-
lence and amphetamines, Phencyclidine/Ketamine, or heroin. While there is
some evidence that some of these drugs may induce psychosis, this reaction is
exceedingly rare; virtually all research on this phenomenon consists of case
studies, making it impossible to even estimate the frequency of such reactions
in the population.
The most extensive research literature concerning drugs and violence is that
of investigations of the relationship between cocaine use and violence. A
search through Sociological Abstracts reveals that this literature has grown
concurrently with concern about, if not use of, cocaine (see White House Of-
fice of National Drug Control Policy 1997 for use statistics). Between 1970
and 1980, only four articles with “cocaine” or “crack” in the title are indexed,
while between 1980 and 1990 there are approximately 75; in the 1990s, this
figure is at nearly 200 before the decade’s end. However, even in the face of
this profusion of research interest, we are still unable to say with any certainty
that cocaine use and violent behavior are related. In part this may be attribut-
able to the limitations inherent in ideologically driven research (e.g. Inciardi &
Pottieger 1994); it may also indicate that such a link really does not exist, and
that any amount of looking will continue to fail to uncover it. At this point in
the state of our knowledge, it is clear that we must look beyond the level of the
individual user in order to adequately understand and characterize the relation-
ship (if any) between illicit drugs and violence.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES
We have identified four recent attempts to specify and/or explain the linkages
among drugs, alcohol, and violence that are worthy of discussion, either for the
fact of their prominence in the research literature or for the promise of greater
understanding that they afford. Three of these four approaches have associated
with them at least some empirical tests of the theories; these are discussed
along with the explication of the theories. Each is discussed in turn, with atten-
tion then passing to the commonalities between these theories, to determine
whether a useful synthesis can be made.
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 299
transition from aggression to violence, as well as the linkages between the an-
tecedents of aggression and aggression itself.
Fagan & Wilkinson propose a general model of youth violence that is rele-
vant to this discussion. They propose that youth violence is “a functional, pur-
posive behavior that serves definable goals within specific social contexts”
(Fagan & Wilkinson 1998, p. 2). Fagan & Wilkinson argue that one of the most
important benefits that accrue to youth from the use of violence is the attain-
ment of status, something to which youths have limited access. The social
world in which adolescents operate places an increasingly high premium on
status and reputation; broader contextual influences such as technology (in the
form of weapons) are important in “raising the stakes” of potentially violent
situations, which may change the meanings attributed to different behaviors
(Fagan & Wilkinson 1998). Another factor that may influence the meanings
attributed to the actions of others is the consumption of drugs or alcohol, due to
the behavioral expectancies that may be associated with them. These poten-
tially violence-producing combinations in meaning-assignment may be par-
ticularly significant when considered in the context of the cognitive limitations
of the developmental stage of adolescence (Leigh 1987). Dating violence may
be a particularly relevant phenomenon to examine within this framework,
given the highly charged adolescent expectancies surrounding alcohol con-
sumption and sexuality (George et al 1988, Corcoran & Thomas 1991) as well
as the heightened importance of sexuality to status attainment at this develop-
mental stage (Fagan & Wilkinson 1998).
Selective Disinhibition: Parker’s Approach
Parker (1993) and Parker & Rebhun (1995) attempt to specifically link alcohol
and violence in an overall conceptual model, utilizing rates of homicide as the
indicator of violent behavior. Parker & Rebhun (1995) advance a sociological
approach to the relationship between alcohol and violence that is much differ-
ent from earlier, biologically based formulations of this relationship (see
Room & Collins 1983 for a review of that literature and the widespread criti-
cisms applied to this notion). In these earlier conceptualizations, alcohol was
conceived as a biochemical agent that had a universal effect on social behav-
ior, despite substantial evidence from cross-cultural studies that alcohol has a
differential impact on behavior depending on the social and cultural contexts
in which it is consumed (see Marshall 1979 for a number of examples of this
point).
Noting this limitation of previous formulations, Parker & Rebhun (1995)
advance a social disinhibition approach, which tries to explain why norma-
tively proscribed behavior is “disinhibited” in relatively few cases. Alcohol se-
lectively disinhibits violence depending on contextual factors specific to the
situation, the actors involved and their relationships to one another, and the im-
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 301
tween illicit drugs and violence is more likely to stem from properties of the il-
licit distribution system (see Goldstein 1985), while the relationship between
alcohol and violence would be expected to be more related to ingestion of the
substance, whether due to the effects of pharmacology, cultural expectancies
surrounding alcohol’s use, or both (Parker 1995, Alaniz et al 1998).
The authors propose two pathways by which alcohol availability may be re-
lated to youth violence. The first of these is largely grounded in Parker & Reb-
hun’s (1995) selective disinhibition approach, in specifying the ways in which
norms proscribing violence may be overcome (disinhibited) given the particu-
lar characteristics of a social situation, including the presence of alcohol. The
second considers the distribution of alcohol outlets in physical space and the
ways in which this distribution may produce “great attractors” (Alaniz et al
1998, p. 14), areas where social controls of all kind are diminished, if not com-
pletely absent; such areas have also been conceptualized as “hot spots” (Sher-
man et al 1989, Roncek & Maier 1991) and “deviance service centers” (Clair-
mont & Magill 1974). Alaniz et al theorize that in this kind of “anything-goes”
atmosphere (1998, p. 15), active constraint may be more likely to become dis-
abled. Add to this the kinds of circumstances in which youths usually drink;
due to the illegal status of alcohol for minors, youths must usually consume al-
cohol in “semi-private” spaces, such as cars or deserted public parks, “thus
[further] limiting the effectiveness of most external forms of social control”
(Alaniz et al 1998, p. 13)
Alaniz et al (1999) also highlight the role of advertising in helping to articu-
late the link between outlet density and youth violence that is particularly rele-
vant in minority communities, which bear a disproportionate share of all types
of violence, including youth violence. This aspect of the theory is further ex-
plicated by Alaniz & Wilkes (1995), who undertook a semiotic analysis of al-
cohol advertising targeted at Latino communities. The authors argue that such
attempts to target minority communities are very effective because, for minor-
ity groups in the United States,
…the state exhibits indifference or hostility to claims of citizenship; the mar-
ket openly embraces the same people…components of Latino cultural arma-
ture are appropriated by advertisers, reinvented, and returned…[;] this form
of reinvention constructs a symbolic system that builds alcohol consumption
into an idealized lifeworld of its constituents. (Alaniz & Wilkes 1995, p. 433)
ing images of minority women was associated, at the neighborhood level, with
rates of sexual violence against females aged 12–18.
The importance of context and the cultural effects of advertising on youths
is demonstrated particularly well by the findings of researchers who initially
set out to study links between illicit drugs and delinquency among Latino
youth populations; these researchers found that tobacco use was significantly
related to violent delinquency, while the use of alcohol and illicit drugs was not
found to be so related. The authors explain this finding thus:
Youngsters who use tobacco act out tobacco-associated identities available
in the media and popular culture. They express a range of symbols about
themselves that suggest being independent, adult, adventuresome, and
tough. These values are also associated with drug use and violent delin-
quency. (Watts & Wright 1990, p. 152)3
3 3It should be pointed out that the majority of the variance in violent delinquency is explained by
prior incarceration; however, tobacco use also emerges as a significant, albeit weaker, predictor of
violent delinquency, thus highlighting the importance of social context in the links between
substance use and violent behavior.
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 305
Another example of the use of the Goldstein typology is the analysis of nine
female homicide offenders, reported by Brownstein et al (1994). This analysis
provides further evidence that alcohol is the substance most commonly associ-
ated with homicide. The authors also conclude from these data that the use of
alcohol or drugs by either perpetrator or victim proximate to the homicide
makes the homicide primarily drug- or alcohol-related (Brownstein et al 1994,
p. 110) despite the fact that the authors report, in some cases, long histories of
spousal abuse on the part of the homicide victim, which another researcher
might consider at least as important a causal factor as the fact of drug or alco-
hol consumption in leading up to the homicide.
A central problem that characterizes all the work that utilizes the Goldstein
tripartite framework is that it is not treated as a set of testable propositions but
rather as a set of assumptions about the nature of drug- and alcohol-related vio-
lence. Because of this, studies guided by this set of assumptions do not address
the task of explaining mechanisms by which violent events might be related to
the presence or use of drugs or alcohol; additionally, all of these studies fail to
provide a detailed explanation of the way in which study events come to be
classified into one type or another. Another problem with Goldstein’s classifi-
catory scheme is that the categories are not mutually exclusive. For example,
many of the situations coded by researchers as events of systemic violence are
economic in nature. Robbery of a drug dealer would seem to be an economi-
cally motivated crime but is classified as systemic in this framework, based on
drug trafficking involvement of the victim and/or perpetrator. In short, the
Goldstein framework seems biased toward support of the systemic model of
drug-effected violence, which also limits the utility of the framework for ex-
plaining the relationship between alcohol—the substance most frequently im-
plicated in violent events of all kinds—and violence. Additionally, the rigidity
and inherently descriptive nature of the classification scheme fails to take into
account the possibility of interactions between social context, individuals, and
pharmacology.
CONCLUSIONS
Several clear conclusions can be drawn from this extensive review of the lit-
erature concerning drugs, alcohol, and violence. One is the overwhelming im-
portance of context in any relationship that may exist between substance use
and violent behavior. Our review of the literature finds a great deal of evidence
that the social environment is a much more powerful contributor to the out-
come of violent behavior than are pharmacological factors associated with any
of the substances reviewed here.
The other consistent finding that we can report from this review of the em-
pirical evidence is that when violent behavior is associated with a substance,
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 307
that substance is, overwhelmingly, alcohol. Study after study indicates that,
even in samples containing relatively high baseline rates of illicit drug use,
violent events are overwhelmingly more likely to be associated with the con-
sumption of alcohol than with any other substance. In fact, a review of the lit-
erature concerning rates of co-occurrence of violent crimes with the use of il-
licit substance fails to provide any support whatsoever for a link. The 1991
Criminal Victimization Survey indicates that less than 5% of violent assailants
were perceived by their victims to be under the influence of illicit drugs; the
corresponding figure for alcohol is more than four times that.
The consensus among the authors of previous reviews of research on alco-
hol, drugs, and violence (Roizen 1993, Collins 1981, Pernanen 1991) was that
evidence existed for an association especially between alcohol and violence,
but that the research base would not support any stronger conclusions. These
and other reviews would invariably end with a call for more and better research
to address the issue of whether evidence about a causal relationship between
alcohol, drugs, and violence could be found. What was missing from those re-
views, however, was a full recognition of the importance of theoretical devel-
opment in the search for evidence about causality. Until the last ten years, such
efforts were largely absent; a number of the studies cited here would replicate
associational findings and end with this same lament about the absence of
causal evidence. However, recent developments, especially the work of Gold-
stein and colleagues, Fagan, and Parker and colleagues, have led to an in-
creased conceptual and theoretical base from which questions of causality can
be better assessed. None of these approaches has succeeded in fully theorizing
the potential relationships among alcohol, drugs, and violence, and none of
these perspectives has provided definitive empirical tests of these theoretical
models. Indeed, all of these approaches need more theoretical development as
well as better data and methodological approaches to advance the state of
knowledge about these relationships. However, at least it is reasonable to
claim that research on alcohol, drugs, and violence demonstrates some promis-
ing theoretical approaches and some useful empirical studies based on those
approaches. Much work is yet to be done, but the prospects for greater under-
standing of how and why alcohol and drugs contribute to violence have never
been brighter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the support of the University of California,
Riverside; Raymond Orbach, Chancellor; David Warren, Vice Chancellor;
Carlos Velez-Ibanez, Dean of the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sci-
ences; Linda Brewster Stearns, Chair, Sociology Department; as well as the
State of California, for their support of the Presley Center for Crime and Jus-
tice Studies, which supported the authors during the completion of this article.
308 PARKER & AUERHAHN
Literature Cited
Abel EL. 1987. Drugs and homicide in Erie Brownstein HH, Spunt BJ, Crimmins S, Gold-
County, New York. Int. J. Addictions stein PJ, Langley S. 1994. Changing pat-
22(2):195–200 terns of lethal violence by women: a re-
Alaniz ML, Parker RN, Gallegos A, Cartmill search note. Women Crim. Justice 5:
RS. 1998. Immigrants and violence: the 99–118
importance of context. Hispanic J. Behav. Budd RD. 1989. Cocaine abuse and violent
Sci.. 20(2): In press death. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 15:
Alaniz ML, Parker RN, Gallegos A, Cartmill 375–82
RS. 1999. Ethnic targeting and the objecti- Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992a. Drugs and
fication of women: alcohol advertising and Crime Facts. 1992. Washington, DC:
violence against young Latinas. In Cur- USGPO
rents in Criminology, ed. RN Parker. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992b. Drugs,
Alaniz ML, Wilkes C. 1995. Reinterpreting Crime, the Justice System. Washington,
Latino culture in the commodity form: the DC: USGPO
case of alcohol advertising in the Mexican Buss TF, Abdu R, Walker JR. 1995. Alcohol,
American community. Hispanic J. Behav. drugs, violence in a small city trauma cen-
Sci. 17(4):430–51 ter. J. Substance Abuse Treat. 12:75–83
Ball JC, Rosen L, Flueck JA, Nurco DN. 1982. Chitwood DD, Morningstar PC. 1985. Factors
Lifetime criminality of heroin addicts in which differentiate cocaine users in treat-
the United States. J. Drug Issues 12: ment from nontreatment users. Int. J. Ad-
225–39 dictions 20:449–59
Ball JC. 1991. The similarity of crime rates Clairmont DH, Magill D. 1974. Africville: The
among male heroin addicts in New York Life and Death of a Canadian Black Com-
City, Philadelphia, Baltimore. J. Drug Is- munity. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart
sues 21:413–27 Cohen LE, Felson M. 1979. Social change and
Baumer E. 1994. Poverty, crack, crime: a crime rate trends: a routine activities ap-
cross-city analysis. J. Res. Crime Delinq. proach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:588–607
31:311–27 Collins JJ Jr. 1981. Alcohol use and criminal
Bennett LW. 1995. Substance abuse and the behavior: an empirical, theoretical, meth-
domestic assault of women. Soc. Work 40: odological overview. In Drinking and
760–71 Crime: Perspectives on the Relationship
Bennett LW, Tolman RM, Rogalski CJ, Srini- between Alcohol Consumption and Crimi-
vasaraghavan J. 1994. Domestic abuse by nal Behavior, ed. JJ Collins Jr, pp. 288–
male alcohol and drug addicts. Violence 316. New York: Guilford
Victims 9:359–68 Collins JJ Jr. 1989. Alcohol and interpersonal
Blount WR, Silverman IJ, Sellers CS, Seese violence: less than meets the eye. In Path-
RA. 1994. Alcohol and drug use among ways to Criminal Violence, ed. NA Wei-
abused women who kill, abused women ner, ME Wolfgang, pp. 49–67. Newbury
who don’t, their abusers. J. Drug Issues Park, CA: Sage
24(2):165–77 Corcoran KJ, Thomas LR. 1991. The influ-
Blumstein A. 1995. Youth violence, guns, the ence of observed alcohol consumption on
illicit drug industry. J. Crim. Law Crimi- perceptions of initiation of sexual activity
nol. 86(1):10–36 in a college dating situation. J. Appl. Soc.
Brown SA. 1993. Drug effect expectancies Psychol. 21:6:500–7
and addictive behavior change. Exp. Clin. Dotson JW, Ackerman DL, West LJ. 1995.
Psychopharmacol. 1(Oct):55–67 Ketamine abuse. J. Drug Issues 25:751–57
Brown SA, Christiansen BA, Goldman MS. Ellinwood EH Jr. 1971. Assault and homicide
1987. The alcohol expectancy question- associated with amphetamine abuse. Am.
naire: an instrument for the assessment of J. Psychiatry 127:1170–75
adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. Fagan J. 1993. Interactions among drugs, alco-
J. Stud. Alcohol 48(5):483–91 hol, violence. Health Affairs 12(4):65–79
ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND VIOLENCE 309
Fagan J. 1990. Intoxication and aggression in Goode E. 1993. Drugs in American Society.
drugs and crime. In Crime and Justice: A New York: McGraw-Hill. 4th ed.
Review of Research, ed. M. Tonry, JQ Wil- Greenberg SW. 1976. The relationship be-
son, 13:241–320. Chicago: Univ. Chicago tween crime and amphetamine abuse: an
Press empirical review of the literature. Con-
Fagan J, Wilkinson DL. 1998. The functions temp. Drug Probl. 5:101–30
of adolescent violence. In Violence in Grube J, Ames GM, Delaney W. 1994. Alco-
American Schools, ed. DS Elliott, KR Wil- hol expectancies and workplace drinking.
liams, B Hamburg. Cambridge Univ. Press J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24(7):646–60
Fagan J, Weis JG, Cheng Y. 1990. Delinquen- Hirschi T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Ber-
cy and substance use among inner-city stu- keley: Univ. Calif. Press
dents. J. Drug Issues 20(3): 351–402 Inciardi JA, Pottieger AE. 1994. Crack-
Fendrich M, Mackesy-Amiti ME, Goldstein P, cocaine use and street crime. J. Drug Is-
Spunt B, Brownstein H. 1995. Substance sues 24:273–92
involvement among juvenile murderers: Jessor R, Jessor SL. 1977. Problem Behavior
comparisons with older offenders based on and Psychosocial Development: A Longi-
interviews with prison inmates. Int. J. Ad- tudinal Study of Youth. New York: Aca-
dictions 30(11):1363–82 demic
Feucht TE, Kyle GM. 1996. Methampheta- Joe KA. 1996. The lives and times of Asian-
mine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Find- Pacific American women drug users: an
ings from the Drug Use Forecasting ethnographic study of their methampheta-
(DUF) Program. Washington, DC: Natl. mine use. J. Drug Issues 26:199–218
Inst. Justice Johnson BD, Natarajan M, Dunlap E, Elmog-
Fishbein DH. 1996. Female PCP-using jail de- hazy E. 1994. Crack abusers and noncrack
tainees: proneness to violence and gender abusers: profiles of drug use, drug sales,
differences. Addictive Behav. 21(2): nondrug criminality. J. Drug Issues 24:
1:55–172 117–41
Fukushima A. 1994. Criminal responsibility in Johnson KM. 1978. Neurochemical Pharma-
amphetamine psychosis. Jpn. J. Psychiatr. cology of Phencyclidine. In Phencyclidine
Neurol. 48(Suppl.):1–4 (PCP) Abuse: an Appraisal, NIDI Re-
Gantner AB, Taylor SP. 1992. Human physi- search Monograph No. 21, ed. RC Pe-
cal aggression as a function of alcohol and tersen, RC Stillman, pp. 44–52. Rockville,
threat of harm. Aggressive Behav. 18:(1) MD: Dep. Health Human Serv.
29–36 Kaplan J. 1983. The Hardest Drug: Heroin
Garriott JC. 1993. Drug use among homicide and Public Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chi-
victims: changing patterns. Am. J. Foren- cago Press
sic Med. Pathol. 14(3):234–37 Klein MW, Maxson CL. 1985. ‘Rock’ sales in
George WH, Gournic SJ, McAfee MP. 1988. central Los Angeles. Sociol. Soc. Res. 69:
Perceptions of postdrinking female sexual- 561–65
ity: effects of gender, beverage choice, Kratcoski PC. 1990. Circumstances surround-
drink payment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. ing homicides by older offenders. Crimi-
18(15):1295–1317 nal Justice Behav. 17(4):420–30
Giannini AJ, Miller NS, Loiselle RH, Turner Krohn MD. 1991. Control and deterrence
CE. 1993. Cocaine-associated violence theories. In Criminology: A Contemporary
and relationship to route of administration. Handbook, ed. J Sheley, pp. 295–314. Bel-
J. Substance Abuse Treatment 10:67–69 mont, CA: Wadsworth
Goldstein PJ. 1985. The drugs/violence nexus: Langevin R, Paitich D, Orchard B, Handy L,
a tripartite conceptual framework. J. Drug Russon A. 1982. The role of alcohol,
Issues 15:493–506 drugs, suicide attempts, situational strains
Goldstein P, Brownstein HH, Ryan PJ, Belluci in homicide committed by offenders seen
PA. 1989. Crack and homicide in New for psychiatric assessment. Acta Psychi-
York City 1988: a conceptually based atr. Scand. 66(3):229–42
event analysis. Contemp. Drug Problems Leigh BC. 1987. Drinking and unsafe sex:
Winter: 651–87 background and issues. NIMH/NIDA
Goldstein P, Brownstein HH, Ryan PJ. 1992. Workshop, Women and AIDS: Promoting
Drug-related homicide in New York: 1984 Healthy Behaviors. Washington, DC
and 1988. Crime Delinq. 38(4):459–76 Leonard KE, Taylor SP. 1983. Exposure to
Goldstein PJ, Bellucci PA, Spunt BJ, Miller T. pornography, permissive and nonpermis-
1991. Volume of cocaine use and violence: sive cues, male aggression toward females.
a comparison between men and women. J. Motivation Emotion 7(3):291–99
Drug Issues 21:345–67 Lerner SE, Burns RS. 1978. Phencyclidine use
310 PARKER & AUERHAHN
drich M, Langley S. 1994. Alcohol and White HR, Pandina RJ, LaGrange RL. 1987.
homicide: interviews with prison inmates. Longitudinal predictors of serious sub-
J. Drug Issues 24(1):143–63 stance abuse and delinquency. Criminol-
Spunt BJ, Goldstein PJ, Belluci PA, Miller T. ogy 25(3):715–40
1990. Race, ethnicity and gender differ- White House Office of National Drug Control
ences in the drugs-violence relationship. J. Policy. 1997. Fact Sheet: Drug Use
Psychoactive Drugs 22:293–303 Trends. National Criminal Justice Refer-
Stets JE. 1990. Verbal and physical aggression ence Service. Available online at http://
in marriage. J. Marriage Family 43: www.ncjrs.org
721–32 Widom CS, Ames MA. 1994. Criminal conse-
Tardiff K, Marzuk PM, Leon AC, Hirsch CS, quences of childhood sexual victimization.
Stajik M, et al. 1995. Cocaine, opiates, Child Abuse Neglect 18(4):303–18
ethanol in homicides in New York City: Wieczorek W, Welte J, Abel E. 1990. Alcohol,
1990 and 1991. J. Forensic Sci. 40(3): drugs, murder: a study of convicted homi-
387–90 cide offenders. J. Criminal Justice 18:
Taylor SP. 1983. Alcohol and human physical 217–27
aggression. In Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Ag- Wilbanks W. 1984. Murder in Miami. Lan-
gression, ed. E Gottheil, KA Druley, TE tham, MD: Univ. Press Am.
Skoloda, HM Waxman. Springfield, IL: Wilson WJ. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged:
Thomas The Inner City, the Underclass, Public
Watts WD, Wright LS. 1990. The drug Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
use–violent delinquency link among ado- Wish ED. 1986. PCP and crime: just another
lescent Mexican-Americans. In Drugs and illicit drug? In Phencyclidine: An Update.
Violence: Causes, Correlates, Conse- NIDA Res. Monogr. No. 64, ed. DH Clout,
quences, NIDA Res. Monogr. No. 103, ed. pp. 174–89. Rockville, MD: Dep. Health
M De La Rosa, EY Lambert, B Gropper, Human Serv.
pp. 136–159. Washington, DC: USGPO Wolfgang ME, Ferracuti F. 1976. The Subcul-
Welte JW, Abel EL. 1989. Homicide: drinking ture of Violence: Towards an Integrated
by the victim. J. Stud. Alcohol 50(3): Theory in Criminology. London: Tavis-
197–201 tock
White HR, Hansell S, Brick J. 1993. Alcohol Yarvis RM. 1994. Patterns of substance abuse
use and aggression among youth. Alcohol and intoxication among murderers. Bull.
Health Res. World 17(2):144–50 Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 22(1):133–44